arXiv (All)
open access
Do Chess Explanations Reflect Model Decisions? Behavioral and Token-Level Tests of LLM Reasoning Faithfulness
Large language models can produce fluent explanations for chess moves, but plausible language does not necessarily reflect the reasoning behind a decision. We study this question in chess, where the board state is fully observable, legal actions can be enumerated, and move quality can be evaluated i
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Benchmarking Prompt Optimization of Large Language Models With Chess#1155351
- Game Arena: Strategic LLM Evaluation in Competitive Environments#1106172
- Efficient computation of counterfactual explanations of LVQ models#779198
- LLM Agents as Static Level-k Players in Behavioural Games#1012249
- Language models judge war differently when tested for alignment#971968
Record · ID 1036928
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive